    [House Hearing, 112 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

    65-602 PDF

                                     ______

    2011

                              SAFE FOR AMERICA ACT

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                       IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT

                                     OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                                    H.R. 704

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 5, 2011

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 112-27

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

          Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                          LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,         JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
        Wisconsin                        HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
    HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         JERROLD NADLER, New York
    ELTON GALLEGLY, California           ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
    BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia                  Virginia
    DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California        MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   ZOE LOFGREN, California
    DARRELL E. ISSA, California          SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
    MIKE PENCE, Indiana                  MAXINE WATERS, California
    J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia            STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    STEVE KING, Iowa                     HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    TRENT FRANKS, Arizona                  Georgia
    LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas                 PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
    JIM JORDAN, Ohio                     MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
    TED POE, Texas                       JUDY CHU, California
    JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah                 TED DEUTCH, Florida
    TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas                LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
    TREY GOWDY, South Carolina
    DENNIS ROSS, Florida
    SANDY ADAMS, Florida
    BEN QUAYLE, Arizona
    [Vacant]

          Sean McLaughlin, Majority Chief of Staff and General Counsel
           Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                                     ------

               Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement

                      ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman

                        STEVE KING, Iowa, Vice-Chairman

    DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California        ZOE LOFGREN, California
    LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas                 SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
    TED POE, Texas                       MAXINE WATERS, California
    TREY GOWDY, South Carolina           PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
    DENNIS ROSS, Florida

                         George Fishman, Chief Counsel

                       David Shahoulian, Minority Counsel
                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                 APRIL 5, 2011

                                                                       Page

                                    THE BILL

    H.R. 704, the ``SAFE for America Act''...........................     3

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
      Immigration Policy and Enforcement.............................     1
    The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
      Immigration Policy and Enforcement.............................     6
    The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
      from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on
      the Judiciary..................................................    23

                                   WITNESSES

    The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Virginia
      Oral Testimony.................................................    27
      Prepared Statement.............................................    29
    Stephen A. Edson, Principal, SAEdson, LLC
      Oral Testimony.................................................    30
      Prepared Statement.............................................    33
    Janice L. Kephart, Director, National Security Policy, Center for
      Immigration Studies
      Oral Testimony.................................................    35
      Prepared Statement.............................................    37
    Johnny Young, Ambassador, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
      Oral Testimony.................................................    44
      Prepared Statement.............................................    47

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative
      in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member,
      Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement.............     8
    Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
      Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and
      Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary.....................    24
    Material submitted by the Honorable Elton Gallegly, a
      Representative in Congress from the State of California, and
      Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement...    54

                                    APPENDIX
                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

    Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative
      in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member,
      Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement.............   131
    Prepared Statement of Dan Stein, President, Federation for
      American Immigration Reform....................................   134
    Prepared Statement of the National Immigration Forum.............   136
    Letter from the Honorable Charles E. Shumer, a U.S. Senator from
      the State of New York, and Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
      on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security...................   138

                              SAFE FOR AMERICA ACT

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2011

                  House of Representatives,
                        Subcommittee on Immigration
                                Policy and Enforcement,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:24 p.m., in
    room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Elton
    Gallegly (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Gallegly, Ross, Conyers, Lofgren,
    Jackson Lee, and Pierluisi.
        Staff Present: (Majority) Andrea Loving, Counsel; Marian
    White, Clerk; and Tom Jawetz, Minority Counsel.
        Mr. Gallegly. Good afternoon. The issues raised by H.R.
    704, the ``SAFE for America Act,'' go to the core of any
    immigration debate.
        That is the integrity of the U.S. Immigration policy.
        H.R. 704 eliminates the visa lottery program under which
    50,000 individuals are chosen completely at random each year to
    receive immigrant visas. The visa lottery, first implemented in
    fiscal year 1995, has long been a subject of concern for those
    of us who believe it is important to have a credible
    immigration system.
        The program is rife with fraud. That was the case in 2003
    when the State Department Inspector General found that ``the DV
    program is subject to widespread abuse.'' That was the case in
    2004 and 2005 when two different State Department Inspectors
    General testified in front of this Subcommittee about the flaws
    in the program. That was the case in 2007 when the Government
    Accountability Office issued a report stating that ``the DV
    program is vulnerable to fraud committed by and against
    applications.'' And that is still the case today, when we will
    hear testimony about high levels of fraud in the program.
        Even the State Department acknowledges the high rate of
    deception throughout the visa lottery. In fact, the Web sites
    for many of the U.S. Embassies around the world include
    diversity visa program fraud alerts, like you can see we have
    on the two screens up here as we speak. This particular alert
    is on the Web site of the London Embassy, but there are similar
    alerts on other U.S. Embassy Web sites.
        And why is fraud such a concern? Because terrorists use our
    generous immigration policy to harm us, and terrorists have
    already used the visa lottery as a means of entering the
    country.
        The Egyptian terrorist who murdered two Americans at LAX in
    2002 was a diversity visa recipient when his wife was selected
    for the lottery. And a Pakistani national who received a
    diversity visa when his parents were selected for the lottery
    pleaded guilty in 2002 to conspiring to wage jihad by plotting
    to destroy electrical power stations, the Israeli consulate,
    and other South Florida targets. He had reportedly told his
    friends he wanted to wage war against the United States.
        But terrorists are not the only people who abuse the visa
    lottery. We will hear testimony today about foreign organized
    crime groups who try their own luck at the lottery. And visa
    lottery applicants and third-party brokers all try to, and do,
    game the system. The visa lottery gives them a great shot at
    winning.
        U.S. Immigration policy should be based on something more
    than just the luck of the draw. It should be secure and it
    should be beneficial to Americans. The visa lottery program is
    neither.
        I am glad to be an original cosponsor of the gentleman from
    Virginia's bill, Mr. Goodlatte, and I look forward to moving
    H.R. 704 toward enactment.
        [The bill, H.R. 704, follows:]

                                   __________
        Mr. Gallegly. At this time, I would yield to my good friend
    from California, the Ranking Member, Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks
    to our witnesses for their patience; first of all, votes and
    then the delay in getting back. There is a suspicious package
    down in the basement, and everybody had to snake their way
    back. So glad that we are finally here on this hearing.
        As the Chairman said, the diversity visa program was
    established by the Immigration Act of 1990, and the goal was to
    encourage greater diversity in the pool of immigrants that we
    accept each year. The program now provides up to 50,000 visas
    annually to natives of countries from which immigrant
    admissions were lower than 50,000 over the preceding 5 years.
        Applicants for diversity visas are chosen by a computer-
    generated random lottery drawing. Each winner is permitted to
    apply for an immigrant visa and can gain lawful permit resident
    status in the United States provided that they pass through the
    screening, because diversity visa winners are subject to all of
    the bars of inadmissibility in the Immigration and Nationality
    Act and must undergo background and security checks that are
    more rigorous than those required for persons entering the
    country by other means such as through the visa waiver program.
        Diversity visa winners must provide biographic and
    biometric information, including fingerprints and a digital
    photograph, pass comprehensive background checks, submit to
    physical and mental examinations, and undergo interviews with
    consular officers abroad before entering the U.S.
        The program represents a small part of our immigration
    system. In fiscal year 2010, only 4.8 percent of the total
    number of persons who obtained lawful permanent resident status
    came through this program, but it also represents an important
    effort that has been largely successful in increasing the
    diversity of legal residents to the United States.
        I recall that this program was originally proposed by then-
    Chairman Peter Rodino. He observed that because we have a
    strong family-based immigration system, this reduces the
    opportunity for immigrants to come to this country if they are
    from places that have historically not sent immigrants to the
    United States, and over time, this limits the ability to grow
    and sustain a diverse Nation. In creating the diversity
    program, Mr. Rodino and many others wanted to encourage
    continued immigration opportunities for people from Italy or
    Ireland; but today, as we see, the program continues to help in
    a small way to balance the immigration system.
        In fiscal year 2006, for instance, 40 percent of diversity
    immigrants were from Africa, and 34 percent were from Europe.
    Compare this to the fact that only 3 percent of family and
    employment-based visas went to persons from Africa, and only 8
    percent went to persons from Europe.
        One frequent criticism about the diversity visa program is
    that it is random, that we bring people to the country through
    the program and that they may not have skills or education they
    need to succeed. We know that the program requires applicants
    to have a high school diploma equivalent, or at least 2 years
    of work experience in an occupation requiring training, but we
    actually get more than that.
        In 2003, the State Department described its typical
    diversity visa recipient as a male professional, age 26 to 30,
    holding a university degree. Just yesterday, the Congressional
    Research Service released a report finding that diversity
    immigrants were 2\1/2\ times more likely to report managerial
    or professional occupations than other lawful permanent
    residents in fiscal year 2009.
        And I would ask unanimous consent that the CRS report be
    entered into the record.
        Mr. Gallegly. Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]

                                   __________
        Ms. Lofgren. This is, of course, not the first time the
    Subcommittee has considered the bill introduced by my friend
    and colleague, Representative Goodlatte. I opposed that bill in
    the 108th Congress and I continue to oppose his measure,
    although I do not dislike him.
        The name of the bill suggests that it increases security
    and fairness, but I don't think it does either. Nothing in the
    bill increases fairness for Americans or for persons who seek
    to emigrate to this country to achieve the American dream. I
    think it does the opposite. The bill just eliminates a small
    immigration program that allows a small percentage of new
    immigrants from underrepresented nations to come and become
    Americans. The program adds to our ethnic and racial diversity,
    which enriches our society and provides the only hope some
    people have to emigrate to the United States lawfully.
        The bill also would not make us any more secure than it
    would if it eliminated any other visa program. Diversity visa
    winners are carefully screened for criminal history or ties to
    terrorism, like any other immigrant. In fact, there is no
    evidence that a terrorist is more likely to enter the U.S.
    under this program than any other U.S. immigration category.
    Given that tens of millions of applications are submitted each
    year for only 50,000 slots, which includes the spouses and
    minor children of lottery winners, this visa program would be
    an incredibly inefficient means of entry for a person who seeks
    to do harm to the United States.
        That is not to say the program is perfect. Both the State
    Department's Inspector General and the GAO issued reports some
    years ago, I might add, highlighting the risk of fraud and
    abuse in the program and the practical resource challenges that
    consular posts faces. The State Department has made significant
    efforts to reduce that risk of fraud, but that doesn't mean we
    shouldn't do more.
        Several years ago, the State Department converted the
    application process from paper to electronic and requires all
    applicants to submit digital photos. Recently, the State
    Department ended the practice of notifying lottery winners by
    mail and now relies entirely on its Web-based system. Consular
    posts provide outreach and education to the community about the
    process and work to combat fraud through the visa adjudication
    process.
        In closing, as I prepared for today's hearing, I was
    reminded that Freddie Adu, the young soccer phenom from Ghana,
    entered the U.S. through the diversity visa program. So did
    Seth Dankar, another native of Ghana, who enlisted as a private
    in the U.S. Army shortly after entering the country on a
    diversity visa. Private Dankar's service was featured in the
    film, ``New American Soldier,'' which highlights the courageous
    work that many immigrants now do in our armed services.
        If there are concerns about this program, we should focus
    on ways to improve it. One idea that was recommended by the
    State Department's IG is that we charge a small application fee
    in order to reduce the prevalence of duplicative applications.
    Now that the system has moved from paper-based applications to
    electronic ones, the cost effectiveness of this anti-abuse
    measure may need to be reassessed.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and working
    with you, Mr. Chairman, to improve this program, and I yield
    back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentlelady.
        The Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Gallegly. Well, like Zoe
    Lofgren, I like Mr. Goodlatte but I don't like his bill. And
    the question here might be in this hearing is do we want to
    have another way for people that don't qualify under the kind
    of three-part system of immigration that we have to come into
    this country or do we not.
        What we are faced with is a rather continued attempt to
    eliminate the people least likely to be able to come to this
    country, and so this part 3 of the program is designed to
    create diversity in our immigration population. And so the
    question is, from my point of view, maybe the opponents of this
    program don't want diversity in the first place, which is a
    perfectly valid position to take. It is not a very nice
    position to take, but if we eliminate this system--and by the
    way, the hearings, what have there been? Three of them so far?
    They are never about how to improve the system. It is how to
    eliminate the system and that is not escaping my attention at
    this hearing either.
        The whole idea is let us get rid of the diversity program
    that is the way more African immigrants get into this country
    than any other way. You are entitled to that view, but I don't
    think that this is the way we want to think about our country
    or its policy on immigration.
        That is why I support the comments made by Ranking Member
    Lofgren. We have got to look at how we improve it, and it is
    very interesting to me that we have--our examples are real
    great--somebody, I can wager, is going to mention Hedayet--how
    can you have a terrorist who has to win the lottery first to
    implement his program?
        The other part of this that is very important is that the
    Government Accountability Office has found no documented
    evidence that the diversity visa immigrants program pose a
    terrorist or other threat. So don't let me hear anybody talking
    about terrorism.
        And I will revise the rest of my statement, Mr. Chairman,
    and yield back my time. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]

                                   __________

        Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentleman.
        And just to take the privilege of the Chair just for a
    second to, if I could, engage both my colleague Ms. Lofgren and
    Mr. Conyers.
        John, my neighbor, my friend, how would you respond to the
    arguments that many make about since this program started there
    have been approximately 800,000 people who have come here under
    the diversity program? Many would argue that that 800,000 that
    have come here would ensure diversity forever through chain
    migration. What would your response to that be, Mr. Conyers?
        Mr. Conyers. But it isn't happening. That hasn't happened--
    well, here, you are just giving me back the challenge that I
    posed. If you really want to cut the numbers down in the
    program, you are saying the program is a success, so that leads
    to the same conclusion: We don't need it anymore. I reject that
    out of hand.
        Ms. Lofgren. If I can answer your question, Mr. Chairman, I
    would note from the report we received from the Congressional
    Research Service just yesterday that the predominant immigrant
    through this is a managerial, single-male professional and who
    is not bringing in a spouse and children.
        So also I would note that the brother-sister backlog, as
    you know, is very regressed. I mean, it is decades in some
    cases for people to bring in siblings. So although
    theoretically one could talk about that, in fact, it is not a
    practical measure.
        We can argue whether or not our immigration system should
    seek to have diversity. I recall Senator Kennedy and Chairman
    Rodino were concerned that the Irish and Italians would not be
    present in our immigrant pool, and they thought that was a
    problem, and that really was the origin of this. And it is
    interesting that it is now the diversity that we are seeing is
    from Africa primarily, not completely, because of the way
    patterns of immigration have developed, and absent this visa,
    aside from the refugee program--and I guess some of our
    students that are coming in who I have met, some who are highly
    educated--we wouldn't see much immigration from Africa. And I
    think, you know, the diversity has always made our country
    richer, and it is why we are a proud immigrant Nation. So that
    would be my answer, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gallegly. And again, we shouldn't be debating this. We
    have witnesses here to listen to, but I can't help but respond
    to the only two examples I used in my opening statement about
    two incidents, one at LAX and one at Pakistani National, that
    was advocating jihad here in the U.S. In both of these
    instances, the people that were advocating this were--one was a
    son and one was a husband of the applicant. So that does have
    something to do with that portion of it.
        In any event, we are fortunate today to have four
    exceptional witnesses. Each of the witnesses' written
    statements will be entered into the record in its entirety, and
    I ask each to try to summarize in 5 minutes, if at all
    possible. We got a late start. It is not your fault, but in
    view of that, I want to make sure everyone has a chance to be
    heard. And, if you will, we will provide the lights as kind of
    a guide, but I would appreciate you to try to work as carefully
    and as helpful in that vein as possible.
        The first witness today, of course, the sponsor of the
    legislation, who is obviously a good friend of both of my
    colleagues here, as evidenced in their opening statements. Bob
    Goodlatte, currently is serving his tenth term representing the
    Sixth Congressional District of Virginia. He has been an active
    Member of the House Judiciary Committee since arriving in
    Congress and is currently Chairman of the House Judiciary
    Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the
    Internet.
        Our second witness today is Stephen Anthony--I have known
    Tony--Edson. Mr. Edson is former Deputy Assistant Secretary of
    State for visa services. He was with the State Department for
    28 years and currently serves as principal, SAEdson law firm.
        Our third witness, Ms. Janice Kephart, is the director of
    national security policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.
    She previously served as counsel to the 9/11 Commission. Ms.
    Kephart received her bachelor's degree from Duke and J.D. From
    Villanova law school.
        And our last witness is Ambassador Johnny Young. Ambassador
    Young is executive director of the migration and refugee
    services of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
    He was previously a member of the senior foreign service with
    the rank of career Ambassador and, last, served abroad as the
    U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Slovenia.
        So you can see we have some very good witnesses this
    afternoon, and we will start with our colleague from Virginia,
    Mr. Goodlatte.

     TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Lofgren, Ranking Member Conyers. It is a pleasure to be before
    you today, and I will submit my written statement for the
    record. I wanted to respond to some of the comments made by the
    Ranking Members, who are indeed my friends as well.
        First of all, the United States has the largest and most
    diverse immigration program in the world, and that is even
    without consideration of the visa diversity or visa lottery
    program. When I practiced immigration law prior to my election
    to Congress for more than a decade, I represented individuals
    from more than 70 countries, none of whom were coming in under
    the visa lottery program. They were coming in under family-
    related and primarily work-related visas. We also admit people
    to this country based upon refugee status from any country in
    the world where that is a necessity, and we grant political
    asylum. So the opportunity right now for diversity from
    virtually any country in the world exists even without this
    program.
        Secondly, this program has been rejected by the House of
    Representatives twice now, once under a Democratic Congress,
    once under a Republican Congress. The House has voted to
    eliminate this program, and while there have been claims, as
    have just been made, that the program could be improved, during
    the majority in which the gentleman from Michigan was the
    Chairman of the full Committee and the gentlewoman from
    California was the Chairman of the Subcommittee, no hearings
    whatsoever were held on this issue or to improve it.
        I would suggest to you that there are a number of
    legitimate reasons why the program should be eliminated. One of
    those is a national security concern. There is no doubt that
    given the fact that there is no necessity for a family
    relationship, no necessity for a particular job skill, that it
    is easy for an organization like al-Qaeda to submit names--yes,
    it is done at random, but you could submit lots of names from
    individuals who do not have terrorism records, are young
    people, whose names could be drawn. We would be none the wiser
    that not only were they admitted to the country like the 9/11
    hijackers were, but they were admitted to the country on a
    permanent resident status, green card, so they are admitted
    permanently to the country.
        Secondly, there is I think a very strong argument to be
    made that this program is grossly unfair to those people who
    have met the public policy interests of the United States.
    Immigration is a two-way street. There is not a person in this
    room who can't go back a few generations or several generations
    and find somebody in their family who came to the United States
    to better their lives for themselves and their family, but we
    do it based upon having a connection, like having a family
    connection or a job skill that is needed in the country, or
    based upon persecution or a refugee status situation.
        And when we do that, it seems to me very important that we
    recognize that this program allows people to bypass people who
    are on very long waiting lists from countries who have family
    relationships, who have job skills that have been determined to
    be in need in this country, and they watch somebody who gets an
    opportunity to get a visa to come here based upon pure luck.
    That combination I think is not a good one, and that is why I
    have introduced this legislation in the last few Congresses.
        It has been bipartisan each time I have done it, and as I
    say, it has passed both in the 109th Congress as a part of the
    appropriations process and in the--in the 109th Congress, it
    passed as an amendment to H.R. 4437 on the House floor with a
    very strong bipartisan vote; and in the 110th Congress, it
    passed as an amendment to the fiscal year 2008 State Foreign
    Operations appropriations bill.
        So, again, I think there is very strong bipartisan support
    for this legislation. I think that the State Department's
    Inspector General testified before the 109th Congress that the
    program contains significant risks to national security from
    hostile intelligence officers, criminals, and terrorists
    attempting to use the program for entry into the United States
    as permanent residents, quote-unquote. With the tool of legal
    permanent resident status in hand, terrorists and spies would
    have free rein to travel and plan terrorist activities within
    the borders of the United States.
        Our immigration policy should be based upon what the needs
    are of the United States because there are people, millions of
    people, who want to come here for a multitude of of different
    reasons, some good, some bad. We should identify the good
    reasons for bringing people here and have an immigration policy
    that does that and not rely on pure luck to determine who are
    the good people that should be coming to this country.
        Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentleman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Goodlatte follows:]

                                   __________

        Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Edson.

         TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN A. EDSON, PRINCIPAL, SAEdson, LLC

        Mr. Edson. Chairman Gallegly, Ranking Member Lofgren,
    Ranking Member Conyers, and distinguished Members of the
    Committee, good afternoon and thank you for allowing me this
    opportunity to discuss my experience with the diversity visa
    lottery program.
        All visa categories are subject to attempted fraud by
    applicants interested in entering the United States illegally.
    Applicants misrepresent their identities, their credentials,
    and their intentions every day before consular officers around
    the world, trying to obtain visas that they don't qualify for.
    Most visa categories, particularly for immigrants to this
    country, have very specific requirements that pose barriers for
    applicants attempting to submit a false application.
        Those wishing to obtain a visa fraudulently must first
    convince DHS through the petition process, and then the
    consular officer during an interview, that the requisite
    relationship or employment experience or work situation exists.
    For someone misrepresenting themselves as a doctor or business
    executive or a parent of a U.S. citizen, quite a bit of
    documentation and interview preparation is thus required.
        Contrast this to the diversity visa program where the
    barriers for entry into the program are so low that we ask
    applicants to prove only that they have the equivalent of a
    high school education or 2 years of some sort of a skill-based
    employment, some sort of financial support or job lined up in
    the U.S., and they are otherwise eligible for a visa, the
    standard ineligibility, public health, criminal record.
        Because almost anyone can qualify for entry into the
    program, the cost of committing fraud in this category is quite
    low. The possibility of legal permanent resident status in the
    U.S. makes it well worth the limited amount of time and money
    required to enter the program fraudulently.
        The diversity visa program is subject to attempted fraud
    both by applicants themselves and, worse, by third-party
    brokers and touts who abuse both the visa system and those
    applicants.
        Fraud by applicants includes, among many other things,
    multiple entries, fraudulent claims to education and work
    experience, pop-up spouses or family members, relatives added
    after the application is submitted, and false claims for
    employment or financial support in the United States.
        Fraud and abuse by third parties is just as prevalent and
    can have tragic consequences. Consular officers have seen cases
    of collusion with post office officials--thus, the change that
    Ranking Member Lofgren mentioned--so that notification to
    winners of the lottery are either stolen and used by someone
    else or held hostage until the applicants pay for the release
    of their documents. This was quite common.
        Just as commonly, unfortunately, the applicant may be
    extorted throughout the process; in other words, not just
    forced to pay for the release of their initial documents, but
    forced to pay criminal gangs in order to be allowed to complete
    their application. This problem occurs to a limited extent, a
    much more limited extent, with other visa categories as well,
    but because these diversity visa applicants don't have
    relatives and employers in the United States, they are
    particularly vulnerable.
        Nor is this sort of abuse limited to applicants who choose
    to enter the diversity visa lottery. Consular officers have
    many times seen unscrupulous agents enroll large groups of
    people, including in Bangladesh the phone book, so that they
    could then extort money from the legitimate applicants who
    didn't in fact apply, or from other people that they sell the
    winning slot to as they apply for the visa.
        The State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs has done
    outstanding work over the years in fighting this fraud in the
    DV program. I should be clear that just because the program is
    rife with fraud, it does not mean that scores of unqualified
    applicants are necessarily entering the United States. The
    refusal rate for the DV cases is quite high, and Consular
    Affairs has done groundbreaking work with facial recognition
    software, electronic application processes, and online data
    analysis tools to weed out fraudulent lottery entries.
        Consular officers in the field are similarly astute in
    interviewing these cases, probing for relationship fraud and
    working hard to validate the few legislative requirements for
    the program. Despite the best efforts of consular officers and
    the State Department, however, the DV program will continue to
    be a special target of attempted fraud. When anyone can play--
    and in this program they can, because of the minimum
    requirements for entry--then everyone will, and the cost of a
    fraudulent application is so low that fraud will remain
    prevalent.
        I believe that the SAFE for America Act will solve the
    problem of fraud in the DV program in the only way it is likely
    to work, by eliminating it. Thank you.
        Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentleman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Edson follows:]

                                   __________

        Mr. Gallegly. Ms. Kephart.

      TESTIMONY OF JANICE L. KEPHART, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY
                 POLICY, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES

        Ms. Kephart. Thank you, Chairman Gallegly and Ranking
    Member Lofgren and Ranking Member Conyers, for holding this
    hearing on the DV program today. I would also like to
    acknowledge the leadership of Representative Goodlatte for the
    introduction of this SAFE for America Act.
        My purpose today is to provide my analysis of the DV
    program from my vantage point as a former 9/11 Commission
    counsel, as well as national security policy director at the
    Center for Immigration Studies. My underlying perspective, let
    me make clear, is to treat our borders as they truly are, as a
    geographic demarcation of U.S. sovereign rights, to assure that
    people who seek to come here are who they say they are and will
    not pose a public safety or terrorist threat to American
    citizens.
        Unfortunately, the DV program is a blind spot in our
    immigration system that assures none of these elements well.
    Instead, it can be a terrorist gamble. A successful application
    means an infiltration tactic with little oversight, a
    guaranteed visa, and permanent residency for those already in
    the U.S. or seeking entry from abroad; or a terrorist or other
    criminal can simply wait for a lottery announcement, then hire
    somebody to buy that win, change identities, and voila, they
    are within our immigration system.
        Whatever purpose the DV program sought to be for diversity
    in a pre-9/11 environment, it has been outlived. Today it is a
    national security vulnerability, and let me go over the six
    main reasons why I believe that is the case.
        First, the DV program draws from nations that are state
    sponsors of terror or are known to harbor terrorist
    organizations with overtly stated terrorist intentions toward
    the United States. Eligibility will remain for these countries
    in the 2012 lottery, despite 9/11 and despite serious
    geopolitical shifts in the Mideast today. The four state
    sponsors of terror--Iran Sudan, Syria, and Cuba--received a
    total of 2,588 visas or adjustments of status for the DV
    program in 2010. Nations with active terrorist populations such
    as Yemen and Somalia, as well as governments known to support
    terrorist causes and terrorist travel, such as Venezuela, also
    benefit from the program, as do Afghanistan and Iraq, to name a
    few.
        Again, there are no stopgaps against fraud, as Mr. Edson
    has pointed out, to determine qualifications or properly vet
    identity, or derogatory intelligence, to assure that
    radicalized individuals applying from these nations are not
    entering the U.S. on a DV.
        Second, the program does not include national security
    standards for, or reviews of, participant countries, such as
    visa-waiver countries have to do to maintain their status in
    that program.
        Third, the program is susceptible to serious fraud and
    malfeasance--admitted by the State Department most recently in
    a press conference back in 2010 discussing the 2012 lottery--
    both in and out of the U.S. because of its inability to assure
    identities or qualifications of fraud, similar but perhaps even
    worse than that we addressed on the 9/11 Commission regarding
    the processing of Saudi visas pre-9/11.
        Fourth, the program's low applicant standards, combined
    with a computer-generated random lottery drawing, creates an
    invitation to those with nefarious intentions to take advantage
    of blind picks and negligible standards.
        Fifth, the program is known to be exploited for human
    trafficking and the slave trade by crime syndicates, which I
    discuss in greater length in my written testimony, and it
    provides little to promote that straightforward diversity from
    lower immigration countries when we have crime syndicates
    taking advantage of it.
        And lastly, sixth, the program enables those already here
    to stay while their change of status is under consideration, as
    known terrorist Hesham Hedayet did, thus increasing the
    vulnerabilities inherent in the DV program by enabling
    potential criminals and terrorists to embed longer and legally
    in the U.S.
        I would like to spend my remaining time focusing on the
    national security challenges of the DV program, particularly
    Iran. The high numbers of DVs issued to Iranians is perhaps the
    best indication that the DV program is operating in a vacuum
    with little concern for national security. For example, Iran is
    known for its security forces actively seeking infiltration
    from abroad, and creates another opportunity for such
    infiltration. It is hard for us to know who is who when we have
    such little penetration into Iran with our own intelligence
    system. Iran, we know, supported 9/11 hijackers' travel. We
    know they support Hezbollah and currently harbor al-Qaeda, and
    this is only the tip of the iceberg.
        Yet the DV program embraces Iran. Looking closely at the
    2010 worldwide distribution of visa lottery winners, Iran
    received 1,854 visas or adjustments of status. Iran ranked
    ninth in the world of the 173 nations eligible to receive these
    visas, up four places from 2009 where it ranked 13th.
        My conclusion is that the DV program has, unfortunately,
    outlived its usefulness in a post-9/11 world. If this Nation
    seeks more diversity in our immigration population, that is for
    you all to decide, but the DV program is not the route to do
    so.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentlelady.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Kephart follows:]

                                   __________

        Mr. Gallegly. Ambassador Young.

                TESTIMONY OF JOHNNY YOUNG, AMBASSADOR,
                  U.S. CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS

        Mr. Young. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like
    to thank you. I would like to also thank Subcommittee Member
    Zoe Lofgren and the Committee Member John Conyers for allowing
    me to testify today. My testimony is on behalf of the United
    States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
        Chairman Gallegly, the U.S. Bishops believe that the call
    for the diversity visa program's elimination is misguided. The
    program is an important facet of not only U.S. immigration
    policy but also U.S. foreign policy interests. Indeed, the
    program benefits the United States' interests both domestically
    and abroad. I will address each of these in turn.
        First, U.S. domestic interests are served by the diversity
    immigrant visa program. The program provides an avenue for a
    diverse population of qualified individuals to emigrate to the
    United States. It reaches beyond those with family or business
    ties in the United States today and creates a mechanism for a
    racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse population to
    lawfully emigrate, that would otherwise not exist under other
    visa programs.
        These eligible immigrants, in turn, benefit from U.S.
    freedom and opportunities while contributing to the economic
    and cultural fabric of our great Nation. In facilitating this,
    the diversity visa program, for most respect for U.S.
    immigration laws, rewarding would-be immigrants who respect our
    laws and seek a lawful means of entry into the United States.
        Second, U.S. foreign policy interests are served by the
    diversity visa program.Mr. Chairman, I served as U.S.
    ambassador to countries as varied as Slovenia and Sierra Leone.
    Today, I am executive director for the largest refugee
    resettlement agency in the world. From these vantage points, I
    have witnessed firsthand U.S. diplomacy and direct aid
    initiatives undertaken to further U.S. national interests
    abroad. These important initiatives are undertaken in part to
    help shape the minds and hearts of those within their borders
    to regard the United States and the democracy it enjoys as a
    beacon of hope and opportunity and, therefore, a leader in the
    world.
        In a 2009 report by the independent task force co-chaired
    by Jeb Bush and published by the Council on Foreign Relations,
    the authors underscored the view of the United States as a
    place of unparalleled openness and opportunity that is crucial
    to the maintenance of U.S. and American leadership. The
    diversity immigrant visa program helps further these
    objectives.
        The diversity immigrant visa program has promoted a
    necessary diversification of the immigrant population in the
    United States. According to the GAO, the data shows that the DV
    program is contributing to the diversification of the U.S.
    immigrant pool. Indeed, well over a half million immigrants
    from countries with low rates of admission to the United States
    have become lawful permanent residents through the program. The
    majority of diversity immigrants are from Africa and Europe,
    two regions with low levels of admission under family- or
    employment-based immigrant visas.
        Mr. Chairman, the diversity immigrant visa program
    generates goodwill and hope among millions across the globe
    ravaged by war, poverty, undemocratic regimes, and opacity in
    government. Through the diversity immigrant visa program, the
    United States makes a counterpoint to that reality, a chance at
    becoming an integral member of an open, democratic society that
    places a premium on hard work and opportunity.
        In fiscal year 2011 alone, there were 12.1 million
    qualified applicants to the diversity immigrant visa program.
    From a diplomacy standpoint, that is a powerful opportunity.
    The U.S. Catholic bishops asks that the Congress maintain
    lawful avenues for immigration to the United States and
    continue to prioritize the diversification of our immigrant
    pool. The diversity immigrant visa is an important facet of
    both our domestic and foreign policy objectives. If we are
    truly concerned about the rule of law, the wholesale
    elimination of legal avenues for immigration such as the
    diversity visa is not the answer.
        Where fraud is present, or security risks the potential,
    Congress should work with the Administration to implement
    measures to combat that fraud as reported by the GAO, and as it
    does with other important government benefit programs.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]

                                   __________

        Mr. Gallegly. I would ask unanimous consent to place into
    the record, without objection, the following items to be made a
    part of the record of the hearing:
        The 2003 Department Office of Inspector General memorandum
    inspection report on the diversity visa program.
        Number two, the 2007 GAO report entitled ``Fraud risks
    complicates States' ability to manage diversity visa program.''
        Number three, March 31, 2011, Irish Times article entitled
    ``U.S. Embassy in Dublin warns of widespread visa lottery
    scam.''
        Number four, March 30, 2011, Arab news article entitled
    ``U.S. Visa scam gets personal.''
        And finally, a copy of the fraud alert on the Web site of
    the Embassy of the United States in London.
        If there is no objection, those will be made a part of the
    record of the hearing.
        [The information referred to follows:]

                                   __________

        Mr. Gallegly. First of all, Bob, in your written testimony
    you referred to a statement before Congress made by the State
    Department's Inspector General in which he stated that the visa
    lottery program contains significant risks to the national
    security of the United States. You also mentioned the case of
    the Egyptian national who was permitted to enter the U.S.
    because his wife was a visa lottery winner. Once in the
    country, the person killed two and injured three at LAX. Can
    you elaborate a little bit on your statement?
        Mr. Goodlatte. Well, I think that there have been reports
    from several sources that have indicated a great concern about
    this. And I think the nature of the concern is that you have
    people who want to come here because they have a family
    reunification issue. They have family that is already here
    petitioning for them. They have a job skill. They have an
    employer who is petitioning for them.
        It is a lot harder for a criminal organization, a terrorist
    organization, or somebody who just wants to come to the United
    States because it is an opportunity for them to engage in some
    kind of activity that we don't want them here for, it is a lot
    harder for them to do that if they have to create that
    connection in the first place. You know, you have to have a job
    skill and an employer who wants them, or they have to have a
    specific family relationship, than if they simply put their
    name into a lottery, as you correctly note, millions of people
    do.
        And while I have no doubt that most of those people are
    wanting to come here for the same reason that other people want
    to come here, those who want to come here for illegitimate
    purposes, including terrorism or criminal activity, have an
    easier time doing that, as Mr. Edson pointed out in his
    testimony, than they do if they have to have that preformed
    connection in order to get the visa in the first place.
        Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Edson, in your statement you mentioned
    the Bangladesh phone book. Can you elaborate a little bit more
    on that as an example of concern?
        Mr. Edson. Certainly. We obviously have no way, or the
    State Department--I have got to get rid of the ``we"--the State
    Department has no way of knowing how often applicants--those 12
    million entrants into the lottery program every year didn't
    actually submit entries on their own behalf. But we know that
    it is quite common for agents to just take personal data on
    existing people and submit it into the lottery as entries.
    Often now, because facial recognition is used and the photos
    are required, picking photographs that are relatively neutral
    so that there is greater opportunity for look-alikes in the
    final win. So then if one of those real people who didn't
    really apply wins a slot in the diversity visa lottery, the
    agent can then sell that slot to somebody who resembles the
    photograph closely enough that they can then steal the identity
    of that other person and complete the application process, and
    there is no preexisting data that is going to rule out that
    individual.
        Mr. Gallegly. Thanks. Ms. Kephart, in your testimony on
    page 6, you discussed how organized crime rings exploit the
    visa lottery program. This is becoming a huge problem in my
    area, in the greater Los Angeles area, having to do with
    Medicare fraud and health care issues, with setting up phony
    clinics and so on and so forth. Does this have any relationship
    to what you are relating to in your testimony, or specifically
    what did your testimony relate to?
        Ms. Kephart. Well, I think you are referring to the use of
    fraudulent and counterfeit documents to support applications in
    general. If that is your reference, yes; we have had Federal
    prosecution have to deal with a number of cases that are
    extremely serious dealing with fraud on the U.S. Side with the
    diversity visa program. One case involved slave trade being
    created out of Africa where young female winners between 10 and
    19 were brought over. They were forced to give up their
    identities and passports and brought over here and had to take
    on new identities.
        There are other pieces of this, though, as well. If you are
    dealing with fraudulent documents--this is something we dealt
    with extensively on the 9/11 Commission--the idea of fraud, the
    idea of looking clean when you are not really clean. And when
    you are dealing with a program like this that does not require
    a lot of identity information on the front end, you can switch
    out identities very easily, as Mr. Edson has done, based on
    fraudulent birth certificates, fraudulent driver's license,
    fraudulent passports on the U.S. side.
        Abroad, there is no way for a consular officer to make a
    determination as to the legitimacy of the high school education
    certificate that you are presenting, the birth certificate, or
    any of the identity information that you are providing. You can
    easily switch that out. Once you do that you are creating a
    fraudulent identity--once you have that in place you have a
    huge vulnerability that is much wider than what you even had
    with the 9/11 situation.
        Mr. Gallegly. Thanks. Thank you very much, Ms. Kephart. Ms.
    Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is
    important to note that nobody on the Committee is in favor of
    fraud, but the issue is how to preserve diversity in a way that
    works for the country. That is the way I see this question
    anyhow.
        Without this diversity visa, African immigrants would only
    be 3 percent of the immigrants to the United States, I mean
    statistically, and I don't think that is good for the United
    States.
        And, Bob, I hear what you are saying. I always think about
    my grandfather, because he came here when he was 16. He didn't
    have family ties. He didn't have a job. He hadn't finished his
    education, but he wanted to come here. He wanted to be free,
    and you know, what a country, his granddaughter is in Congress.
    So that is part of what this is about. It is to not lose that
    part of our history, but the question is how do we avoid the
    problem.
        Mr. Edson, I don't know the answer to this. Can the State
    Department impose a fee on their own? They don't need
    congressional action to do that, or do they?
        Mr. Edson. I am probably not in the best position to
    answer, but it is my understanding that they do need
    congressional action.
        Ms. Lofgren. That is something that maybe we ought to look
    at, because certainly if there were a fee, that would be a
    deterrent. If we are talking about entering the phone book,
    that would be a very different issue. I think the facial
    recognition and the Web-based stuff is going to help, and maybe
    there are some other ideas to make this work better.
        You know, I think it is always dangerous to legislate by
    anecdote. Certainly, the fellow in Los Angeles who engaged in
    violence was awful; but there was an Egyptian man named Abdel
    Rahman Mossabah who came as a diversity visa immigrant, and he
    uncovered a planned terrorist attack on the New York City
    subway system. He reported it to the New York City Police
    Department, and they went in and they arrested the guys and
    they stopped the plot.
        So I don't think you say, well, that is the reason for the
    diversity visa program any more than the reverse. And I think
    it is worth noting that the GAO's report that has now been
    entered into the record--and this is a quote--``found no
    documented evidence that diversity visa immigrants from [state
    sponsors of terrorism] or other countries pose a terrorist or
    other threat.''
        So we need to, I think, make improvements if we can.
        Ambassador Young, I found your testimony actually pretty
    moving because the diplomatic value of being a beacon of hope
    for the world really is important to the United States. You
    served as Ambassador to a number of Nations. Were you able to
    use this as a tool of diplomacy, and can you expand on your
    experience with those who applied for the lottery program and
    what it means to us in the diplomatic sense, or who they are in
    your experience?
        Mr. Young. Certainly. I found it particularly useful when I
    was in Africa, in Togo in particular. I served in Sierra Leone
    also, but that was prior to the program. In countries that are
    under, you know, oppressive governance and rule, that are very
    impoverished, that has very little to offer its people--
    although I didn't go around peddling or advertising for the
    diversity visa in my interaction with young people, with young
    professionals, and what have you--they would ask me: You know,
    what can I do? I am a university graduate, I am a professional,
    or what have you. There is nothing for me to do here. What can
    I do? You know, you come from a great country; is there
    anything you can do for me?
        I said, well, I can't meddle in the visa business as the
        Ambassador, but we do have something called the diversity
    visa program and you can apply for it and you may win, you may
    not, and you keep trying until you do.
        I can cite the case of a woman that I knew in Togo. She was
    educated. She had a sister in the United States who was a U.S.
    citizen. The sister had petitioned for her. She believed that
    the wait would have been about 25 years, and while waiting, she
    applied for the lottery. She didn't win the first few times but
    she won--I think it was about the fourth time around. She came
    to the United States. She brought her teenage son. He finished
    school here in the United States and last year got his MBA at
    Harvard.
        Ms. Lofgren. Wow, quite a story.
        Mr. Young. That was a good one.
        Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Conyers.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much. And, Mr. Ambassador, what
    is the impact of 12 million people all thinking about trying to
    get over here?
        Mr. Young. Well, they are anxious to do that because they
    look to us as their one opportunity for hope and for getting
    out of the situation that they are in. So they think of the
    United States in a very positive way, and I think that is a
    very good thing for our image, and I think that helps us. And
    as I said, the most important thing is that we offer--this is
    an opportunity for hope.
        Mr. Conyers. And, Mr. Edson, your work with State
    Department gave you an opportunity to make a number of
    improvements, and we are grateful to you for that. I wanted to
    thank you. Could you discuss some of the things you got in
    place while you were there?
        Mr. Edson. Certainly, thank you. The program when it began
    was a mail-based program and the amount of mail received was so
    high that the envelopes were actually bar-coded on the outside
    without being opened. Winners were selected sight unseen. In
    the early years there was no way to tell how many entries were
    being submitted by applicants, and, in fact, we knew through
    sampling those first couple of years, there were large numbers
    of duplicate entries, thousands of duplicate entries from
    people who were just using technology and law firms and agents
    and things to help them out.
        The State Department was able to move to an electronic
    application process at a time when people thought that Internet
    penetration wasn't enough. That helped. The facial recognition
    has helped. It was I think one of the earliest uses of facial
    recognition technology in the government to look for duplicate
    entries in the application process, and then some changes in
    rules like the requirement to submit photographs with the--and
    not the application but the lottery entry, the first stage,
    they were required to submit a photograph. That limits some
    identity fraud opportunities.
        It is telling, though, if I can get off the track just
    slightly, the bulk of the money spent on this program is to
    fight fraud in this way instead of to administer the program.
    And that is unlike any other visa work that we do, or we did at
    State, where the bulk of the resources were spent helping
    applicants get through the process. In this case it is almost
    all fraud-related but it has been done.
        Mr. Conyers. I want to thank you for your helpfulness and I
    wanted to turn to attorney Kephart because, you know,
    immigration as a field is a big problem in all of its branches,
    don't you think? I mean, there is a lot of work to be done in
    all the areas and there continues to be more work done in this
    area.
        Ms. Kephart. Yes, Ranking Member Conyers, yes, absolutely,
    you are right.
        Across border security apparatuses, Mr. Edson was one of
    the people I interviewed when I was on the 9/11 Commission, and
    we went across the board, as you know, making lots of
    recommendations and criticisms on border security. Our staff
    monograph ``9/11 and Terrorist Travel'' is a long history of
    problems with the immigration system, and there have been some
    improvements in some areas for sure.
        It is unusual for me, I have to say, to actually be in
    agreement on eliminating something completely. And in this
    particular case, when you run it through the rubric of our sort
    of tiered-analysis we used on the 9/11 Commission, we said two
    things that people up here know very well: Terrorist travel
    documents are as important as their weapons are; and that we
    must assure that people are who they say they are.
        When you look at this, this is not just a nonimmigrant
    visa. This is an immigrant visa. This allows permanent
    residency. This allows you to go freely in and out of the
    United States. So the vulnerability here is high. So for me,
    the security aspect of it on the front end has to be very high.
    Because that is not there, I think that is a vulnerability and
    because we really can't--there are improvements in the system
    for sure in the DV program.
        However, the DV program is not strong enough to really
    assure that people are who they say they are. And when we are
    embracing state sponsors of terror, when we are embracing those
    nations where we know there are radicalized populations, that
    puts I think this on a cusp of--an unfortunate cusp of not
    being a program that assures our national security and really
    gets at the issue that this program is supposed to, which is
    diversity and welcome mat to those who otherwise would not have
    the opportunity to come here.
        Mr. Conyers. Chairman, could I get one additional----
        Mr. Gallegly. With the help of you and Mr. Pierluisi, I
    made a commitment we would finish by 330. So I will be happy to
    do that. Maybe you could help me, Mr. Pierluisi, to yield to
    Mr. Conyers.
        Mr. Pierluisi. I will yield a minute to the ranking.
        Mr. Gallegly. Thank you.
        Mr. Conyers. On a personal--I know you are representing
    here today. But, personally, has your vast experience with
    immigration issues led you to be skeptical, if not negative,
    about the whole immigration system itself?
        Ms. Kephart. Actually, no. I think that the immigration
    system, as problematic as it is, has a lot of potential for
    improvement, and that is how I look at it. You know, I look at
    the southwest border and I see potential that we can actually
    secure that border now. And I look at all the work that has
    been done since 9/11 and the seriousness with which you all
    took our recommendations and that gives me a lot of hope. I
    think if I had thrown in the towel, I wouldn't be sitting here
    right now.
        Mr. Conyers. But you have given up on this one.
        Ms. Kephart. On this particular one, yes, because I think
    it will----
        Mr. Conyers. We want to encourage you. We want to give you
    hope and encouragement. We want to keep hope alive.
        Ms. Kephart. I understand, sir.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Pierluisi.
        Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you, Chairman. I will just make a
    comment and then wait for your reactions. I just believe that
    messages we send to the rest of the world are very important.
    And by having this program, we are sending a message that we
    continue to welcome immigrants from a diversity of backgrounds
    and nations of origins, and that is an important message. We
    have always been viewed as the land of opportunity and lots of
    people would like to join us; and what is wrong with that?
        I do agree that we have to make every effort to make sure
    no terrorists take advantage of a program like this. We don't
    want any of them here, but I see--and the stats do not support
    this issue we are raising, because when I see the stats, close
    to 800,000 people have come in using this program to our
    country, and I can only see four cases of actual terrorists we
    have spotted. Wow, four cases out of 800,000 people. That is
    the first thing that comes to my mind.
        Another thing, GAO, which was the last objective entity
    looking at this, said there is no evidence of the program being
    abused for purposes of terrorism. So I see that, too.
        And then I see all these enhancements. So my reaction, my
    gut feeling is, let us keep improving it, but let us not send
    the message that we are basically closing this or, you know,
    shutting this door on so many people that dream about joining
    us and making this country even better.
        So now I would like to hear your reactions. I guess I will
    start with Mr. Young; but, obviously, my fellow Member here, I
    would like to hear from you, too, Congressman Goodlatte.
        Mr. Young. Shall I begin?
        Mr. Pierluisi. Yes, I guess I said it in that order.
        Mr. Young. I am with you 100 percent. I believe that the
    program is important to what we try to do worldwide in terms of
    who we are, what we represent, that we do offer hope. We give
    people an opportunity to those who are successful through this
    program to live with dignity and to realize their potential. We
    think the program is good. It is valid. It serves our purpose.
    We say do not eliminate it but let us work and find ways to
    improve its imperfections.
        Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Goodlatte, did you want to respond?
        Mr. Goodlatte. I definitely do. Let me just say, as I
    indicated earlier, I have practiced immigration law before this
    program existed and, at that time, helped people to obtain
    permanent resident status from more than 70 countries. So I
    think that we already are, regardless of this program's
    existence, the most diverse Nation on Earth and it is in part
    because of our immigration policies. But if those policies are
    designed to make this country better, we ought to take into
    account who it is that want to come here, based upon needs that
    we have in the United States, including needs to have the
    people with particular job skills, and including the important
    need to reunify people who have family members who are already
    here. Those should be our priorities. And given the high, high,
    high level of immigration we have, and given the problem that
    we have with the levels of unemployment and so on, we should
    not pick people to come here based on pure luck.
        And I respect the millions of people who want to come here.
    My concern is that basing your future upon whether or not you
    have one in 200 or one in 300, whatever the odds are, the
    chance of having your name picked out is like saying, I am
    going to--you know, I am going to save for the future by buying
    a lottery ticket every week. That is not the best way to
    enhance your own life.
        The program should be based upon people who have something
    the United States needs and want to come here, we want them
    here and they want to be here, not based simply on pure luck,
    chosen at random.
        Mr. Gallegly. The time of the gentleman has expired. I want
    to thank all of the Members for being here today, particularly
    when everyone likes everyone, that always makes it a lot easier
    for the Chair.
        In any event, thank you to all of our witnesses and,
    without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative, days to
    submit to the Chair additional written questions for the
    witnesses, which we will forward and ask the witnesses to
    respond as promptly as they can so the answers can be made a
    part of the record of the hearing.
        Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
    to submit any additional materials for inclusion into the
    record.
        Again, thank you all for attending today, and with that,
    the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:32 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record